Author Topic: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS  (Read 541723 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 44,015
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,265
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #600 on: October 20, 2014, 22:18:34 »
Not surprisingly, the planned order for AOPS is being trimmed to perhaps only 5 vessels: Shared from CTV news and the Canadian Press authors in accordance with the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, RSC:


OTTAWA -- The Harper government is trimming its expected order of Arctic patrol ships and evaluating a set of unsolicited proposals to convert civilian cargo ships for use by the Canadian navy.

So say several government, defence and industry sources who spoke to The Canadian Press on condition of anonymity.

Both steps are a sign that more modest expectations have been set for the government's national shipbuilding strategy, which after three years has yet to deliver any new vessels.

Sources familiar with the plan, but not authorized to discuss it publicly, say National Defence and Public Works are studying a proposal from the Davie Shipyard in Quebec for a five-year lease of bulked-up civilian cargo ships.

At the same time, negotiations with Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding for the construction of Arctic offshore patrol ships have seen the government scale back a plan to buy as many as eight vessels to enforce sovereignty in the North.

The government now plans to buy just five light icebreakers, with an option for a sixth


Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/harper-trims-the-number-of-arctic-warships-on-order-1.2062482#ixzz3Gk3jaaUT



 
Living the lean life

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 435,640
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,412
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #601 on: October 28, 2014, 15:56:41 »
Not surprisingly, the planned order for AOPS is being trimmed to perhaps only 5 vessels: Shared from CTV news and the Canadian Press authors in accordance with the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, RSC:

OTTAWA -- The Harper government is trimming its expected order of Arctic patrol ships and evaluating a set of unsolicited proposals to convert civilian cargo ships for use by the Canadian navy.

So say several government, defence and industry sources who spoke to The Canadian Press on condition of anonymity.

Both steps are a sign that more modest expectations have been set for the government's national shipbuilding strategy, which after three years has yet to deliver any new vessels.

Sources familiar with the plan, but not authorized to discuss it publicly, say National Defence and Public Works are studying a proposal from the Davie Shipyard in Quebec for a five-year lease of bulked-up civilian cargo ships.

At the same time, negotiations with Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding for the construction of Arctic offshore patrol ships have seen the government scale back a plan to buy as many as eight vessels to enforce sovereignty in the North ....
Interestingly enough, this just out today:
Quote
Canada will fail to deliver a proposed fleet of six to eight Arctic patrol ships unless it spends significantly more than the C$2.8 billion ($2.51 billion) planned, the Canadian Parliament's budget watchdog said on Tuesday.

The Conservative government had announced plans to build the fleet of polar-capable ships over the next decade as part of its strategy to exert sovereignty over the region and increase operating capability there.

But a review by the Parliamentary Budget Office, set up in 2006 to provide independent analysis to legislators, concluded that the government's existing plan would only deliver three or four ships.

"It is not possible at any confidence level to build eight or six ships for the C$2.8 billion budget," said the report released by Jean-Denis Fréchette, Canada's parliamentary budget officer.

A government spokesman rejected the analysis.

"The numbers provided by the PBO are based on erroneous data, rough cost estimates of international vessels with varied capabilities and derived using inaccurate specifications," said Marcel Poulin, a spokesman for Canada's Public Works Minister Diane Finley.

Fréchette said that there was insufficient contemporary Canadian data on an acquisition of this nature. He also wrote that Canada's defense department had removed details of the fleet's proposed capabilities from its website and declined to share technical details ....
PBO deck and report here and here.
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 453
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #602 on: October 28, 2014, 17:49:39 »
So over $400 million per ship!!!  I wish we could cancell the selection of Irving and go with Davie.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 147,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,683
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #603 on: October 29, 2014, 11:49:53 »
When Davies is better than your current selection you have serious problems.

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 453
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #604 on: October 29, 2014, 13:25:31 »
We do have serious problems, being the cost of domestic ships compared to outsourcing.

Offline GK .Dundas

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 18,645
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 458
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #605 on: October 29, 2014, 14:44:09 »
We do have serious problems, being the cost of domestic ships compared to outsourcing.
Actually the system works perfectly when you understand it is designed to produce jobs, votes  and DND / Treasury board pensions.The production of of any military equipment  is quite frankly a byproduct of the process, and sometimes almost accidental.
 The only truly successfull procurement program in the last ten years was the C 17 .
 It also provided both proof of my argument and some inadvertent humour on the part of the political leaders involved.
 After the announcement of the C 17 purchase  three provincial  premiers held a hastily called press conference where basically they screamed like a collection of cheated whores .Because the contract wouldn't generate any or very few jobs in Canada . I still get a delightful case of the warm and fuzzies when recalling this incident .
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 16:35:40 by GK .Dundas »
"Norman. You know my policy on arming morons.If you arm one you have arm them all. Otherwise it 's just not sporting!"

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 453
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #606 on: October 29, 2014, 15:05:57 »
Actually the system works perfectly when you understand it is designed to produce jobs, votes  and DND / Treasury board pensions.The production of of any military equipment  is quite frankly a byproduct of the process, and sometimes almost accidental.
 The only truly successfull procurement program in the last ten years was the C 17 .
 It also provided both proof of my argument and some inadvertent humour on the part of the political leaders involved.
 After the announcement of the C 17 purchase  three provincial  premiers held a hastily called press conference where basically the screamed like a collection of cheated whores .Because the contract wouldn't generate any or very few jobs in Canada . I still get a delightful case of the warm and fuzzies when recalling this incident .
As a taxpayer it makes me sick what we are going to have to pay for these ships and how much of the money cannot have anything to do with the building of the ships, as we could really build the ships 2 or 3 times over.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 147,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,683
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #607 on: October 29, 2014, 15:45:57 »
both in time and money

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 257,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,224
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #608 on: October 31, 2014, 18:31:34 »
As a taxpayer it makes me sick what we are going to have to pay for these ships and how much of the money cannot have anything to do with the building of the ships, as we could really build the ships 2 or 3 times over.

Murphy's Rules of Armed Conflict:

Remember that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder  ;D
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 453
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #609 on: October 31, 2014, 18:46:20 »
Murphy's Rules of Armed Conflict:

Remember that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder  ;D
I agree with the point, don't want our ships to have made in China stamped on the bottom, but alot of that money is not going towards getting a better ship, it's just vaporizing out of tax payers pockets.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 222,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,326
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #610 on: October 31, 2014, 23:29:27 »
If by 'vapourizing' you mean having each dollar cycle approximately nine-fold* within the Canadian economy before being attrited to a negligible value, then yes...

G2G

* searching for the reference I read recently about the recursive value of each dollar of taxpayers' money spent within Canada's economy.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 31,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 880
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #611 on: November 02, 2014, 10:57:17 »
I agree with the point, don't want our ships to have made in China stamped on the bottom, but alot of that money is not going towards getting a better ship, it's just vaporizing out of tax payers pockets.

"better" is relative; a lot of the valve bodies etc are now coming out of China, and are of high quality.  There is plenty of expensive poor quality work getting done in Canada at premium dollars.  I don't think anyone minds paying more for Canadian made, but the old assumption that it's better (or at least comparable) quality doesn't always work.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 142,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,699
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #612 on: November 03, 2014, 10:26:43 »
Without getting them made in China, I could not see anything wrong with Irving deciding to get the hulls assembled in, say, Poland, and then towed/shipped to Halifax for fitting out. That is what the Danes did for their Knud Rasmunssen class. After all, an ice capable hull is expensive to make because of he thickness of the steel and more complex welding process that results from it so, why not use a shipyard that already has welders that mastered that art?

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 147,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,683
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #613 on: November 03, 2014, 12:25:02 »
"better" is relative; a lot of the valve bodies etc are now coming out of China, and are of high quality.  There is plenty of expensive poor quality work getting done in Canada at premium dollars.  I don't think anyone minds paying more for Canadian made, but the old assumption that it's better (or at least comparable) quality doesn't always work.

It's a common practice to look at factory codes in China as some factories have reps for quality products and others for utter crap. Most of the high end pianos are made in China and then sold under other brand names.

Offline misratah500

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,905
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 122
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #614 on: December 30, 2014, 18:17:59 »
I still don't know what the point of these vessels are? They navy doesn't deal with the arctic, the coast guard does. Will these ships be deployable? Are they replacing the MCDV's as coastal vessels? Can they RAS or integrate into a task group.

If feels to me that the navy is being shoved something it doesn't need or ******* want. Just to fulfill the Con's promises of arctic icebreakers and protect the north blah blah blah.

Offline Tcm621

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 13,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 772
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #615 on: December 30, 2014, 19:29:43 »
I still don't know what the point of these vessels are? They navy doesn't deal with the arctic, the coast guard does. Will these ships be deployable? Are they replacing the MCDV's as coastal vessels? Can they RAS or integrate into a task group.

If feels to me that the navy is being shoved something it doesn't need or ******* want. Just to fulfill the Con's promises of arctic icebreakers and protect the north blah blah blah.
The coast guard doesn't actually guard a coast and the North needs guarding. Right now there are 4 major claimants to the resources up there including one which just named NATO it's biggest threat. With no presence up there it weakens our position to that area. This is the point of a naval forces up their. To guard our 3rd coast.

Offline misratah500

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,905
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 122
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #616 on: December 30, 2014, 20:53:32 »
The fact that the coast guard doesn't actually guard anything should probably be something that needs to be looked at. They should actually be armed and a part of the military not fisheries and oceans.

These vessels will be only useful in the summer time when winter ice is it's thinnest. Those nuclear Russian icebreakers on the other hand will have free reign where we won't. If they were serious about Arctic defence (they're not) then we would have other ships, subs and bases that could deal with the Arctic year round.

It's all PR photo ops.

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 187,681
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,122
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #617 on: December 30, 2014, 21:24:02 »
Oh,

That is soooo cynical. 

True.

But cynical!

NS
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline ringo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 154
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #618 on: December 31, 2014, 01:54:34 »
Limit AOPS to three ships ordered additional icebreakers for Coast Guard and arm Coast Guard.

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #619 on: December 31, 2014, 06:57:54 »
Limit AOPS to three ships ordered additional icebreakers for Coast Guard and arm Coast Guard.

From my understanding, Coast Guard personnel don't wish to become an armed entity.  You'd have pushback from that quarter.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 147,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,683
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #620 on: December 31, 2014, 10:26:36 »
Fisheries used to have armed vessels and the RCMP had a significant fleet including a frigate. The CCG does a lot of work that does not requiring being armed. It will be much easier to start arming ships with heavy MG's to support boarding parties from other agencies. The CCG crews are not trained or interested in boarding. The biggest issue will be training the Captains to willingly use the ROE's given. Training the crews to use the MG's will be easy and will fit into normal crew cycles. The new CCG vessels should be designed to accept bigger armament with hard points, comms, electrical connections in place. Which would allow much faster arming of the vessels if required.

http://www.forposterityssake.ca/Navy/HMCS_BROCKVILLE_J270_178.htm


(She is still afloat)


Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 98,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,159
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #621 on: December 31, 2014, 12:47:15 »
jollyjacktar:
Quote
From my understanding, Coast Guard personnel don't wish to become an armed entity.You'd have pushback from that quarter.

If the government wishes to change the Role of the CCG, then the union mbrs can pushback all they want. I don't think all the Cdn border guards wanted to be armed.

If the Role changes (and I doubt it will), then FRP/Reaganize them (Reaganize = air traffic controllers).
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 147,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,683
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #622 on: December 31, 2014, 13:11:20 »
The CCG is struggling to get people with marine tickets as it is now (because the pay sucks compared to the rest of the marine industry) so you can't force to hard. teaching them to shoot MG's would likely be seen as fun by most and would not unduly interfere with the rest of their duties. Training the deck crew to shoot the MG's and drive the boats for the boarding parties will be the easy part. Getting the Captains and senior management to accept the responsibility of giving the orders to open fire to cause harm or death will be the hardest part. Hence the reason why I suggest the phased approach and planning for the fitting of armaments and supporting systems. Some people who have other unique skillsets in demand will not buy into the new role and you still need them.

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 26,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 771
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #623 on: December 31, 2014, 13:25:43 »
You cannot have a situation where one crew can respond whilst another can't.  Coast guard is needed for clean-up, maintaining channels, surface rescue and clearing ice channels.  These skill sets do not require the use of an mg. Requirement for an armed naval vessel with other than first year ice capabilities is very limited.  After all, if the ice is that bad what are you going in after?  Anyone up there is going to be iced in unless it is another ice breaker and no one is going to invade Canada from the north at 5 knots or less.  Better to return to the armed fisheries or RCMP model if the navy isn't going to be properly expanded to satisfy the defense role.  IMHO expanding naval capabilities is by far the best solution. 

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,801
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #624 on: December 31, 2014, 17:23:44 »
....The biggest issue will be training the Captains to willingly use the ROE's given. Training the crews to use the MG's will be easy and will fit into normal crew cycles. The new CCG vessels should be designed to accept bigger armament with hard points, comms, electrical connections in place. Which would allow much faster arming of the vessels if required.


The issue I see is not so much one of finding Coast Guard members willing to fire the guns but finding members willing to continue firing when fire is returned.

Chasing Spanish Fishermen is not the same as chasing Armed Smugglers and Pirates.

On the other hand - I see nothing wrong with the government building vessels that can be employed unarmed by the Coast Guard and armed by the RCN.

Make like the Danes and put Stanflex positions on the AOPS and anything over 1000 tonnes.  Then you can drop in a OM76 or a Bofors 57 (or even a 40) or a 25mm RCWS as the mission requires - and you can drop in an RCNR crew along with the weapons.

By the way - you should probably add Scan Eagles to every CCG and RCN platform as a matter of course.  It would enhance their search and surveillance capabilities immeasurably (and likely reduce helicopter search time).
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019